School prayer first became a topic of hot public debate following
the 1962 Engel v. Vitale 1
ruling in which the U.S. Supreme Court began an unprecedented assault on the traditional
practice of invoking God's blessing on the school day.  The public was so
disgruntled following the Engel decision that Congress convened extensive hearings
exploring ways to restore school prayer and to halt any encroachment on other religious
liberties. Those hearings marked the birth of an organized movement to reinstate school
prayer.

In the more than three decades since the Engel case, additional rulings
from courts at all levels have encroached on prayers in many public settings, including
graduation ceremonies, school board and city council meetings, courtrooms, legislatures,
etc. During that time, the impetus to restore school prayer has steadily grown and has had
several champions ranging from individual citizens to Presidents of the United States.

In the early years of the movement, it was widely believed that no constitutional
amendment was needed since many doubted whether the Court would make any additional
rulings such as those of 1962-63. However, that belief proved to be optimistic; additional
religions-restrictive rulings were delivered. Consequently, the sentiment became
widespread that the only way to halt further rulings was through an amendment.

Yet until recently, there were not enough Congressmen willing to promote such and
amendment. Now, with the change in Congress following the 1994 elections, there is a new
positive feeling about this issue. In fact, current Congressional leadership is pursuing
the introduction, passage, and ratification of a constitutional amendment to safeguard
religious liberties.

While many believe an amendment is the best solution for restoring prayer, others ate
not convinced and ate therefore reluctant to support this approach. They are especially
reticent to "tamper" with the Constitution through the addition of an amendment
since they believe that the problem is with the Court's interpretation and not with the
actual Constitution. Therefore, the question often arises, "Is there any other way to
restore school prayer?" The answer is, "Yes." In fact, there are four
separate means by which prayer can be restored.

Over recent decades, the Court has shown its willingness to reverse its previous
rulings--although such reversals occurred only after Justices were replaced with those
holding different opinions. Consequently, the Court's self-reversal of its previous
rulings is a very slow and laborious process requiring years and often spanning the
tenures of several different Presidents. Nonetheless, with more Justices holding the basic
historical approach to religious liberties currently embraced by Justices Rehnquist,
Scalia, and Thomas, the Court's previous decisions can be overturned, this returning
voluntary school prayer. However, of the four potential solutions, this is the slowest;
and there is also no guarantee that a sufficient number of such Justices will ever be
appointed. Furthermore, individual Justices can be highly unpredictable.

For example, in Allegheny v. ACLU, 2 Justice Kennedy strongly supported
religious expressions by relying heavily on historical precedent; however, only three
years later in Lee v. Weisman, 3he opposed religious expressions and
based his opinion on what Justice Scalia described as logic that was "conspicuously
bereft of any reference to history" 4(emphasis added). Waiting for a
reinstatement of prayer from an internal change in the Supreme Court is the most uncertain
approach.

2. School prayer can be reinstated by limiting the Court's appellate jurisdiction.

The question of appellate jurisdiction--that is, the Court's ability to hear an issue 5--is outlined in
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states:

The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact. with such
exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

This provision is termed the "exceptions clause" and allows Congress to pass
laws which simply removed an area of jurisdiction from the Court--an action with
historical precedent.

For example, prior to the Civil War, the Supreme Court demonstrated a strong propensity
toward Southern pro-slavery beliefs in its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sanford. 6Following the
Civil War, Southern sympathizers wanted to halt Reconstruction policies and one applied to
the Court in Ex parte McCardle. 7When Congress suspected that the
Court would rule in favor of the Southerners, it passed an Article III, Section 2 law
which removed the Reconstruction issue from the Court's jurisdiction. 8The Court subsequently dropped the
case and withdrew itself from any further interference.

The "exceptions clause" has been similarly used on several other occasions
throughout the years. In fact, in 1979, Senator Robert Byrd attempted to apply it to the
issue of school prayer by introducing the following law:

A. The Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review by appeal,
writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any state statute, ordinance,
rule, regulation, or any portion thereof, or arising out of an act interpreting, applying,
or enforcing a state statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation, which relates to voluntary
prayers in public schools or public buildings.

B. The District Courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case of
question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under this act. 9

That proposed law did not pass, but had it done so, it would have effectively
reinstated voluntary school prayer. However, this method would not remove the three
decades of religion-hostile federal Supreme Court decisions which have become a part of
the case-law precedent of the State courts.

The Founding Fathers drafted the Bill of Rights (the first Ten Amendments to the
Constitution) specifically to list the issues into which the federal, and only the federal
government, could not intrude. Knowing that they could not list every important State
right, the Founders protected all others through the Tenth Amendment by declaring:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment was the Founder's ultimate protection against the intrusion of the
federal government into arenas which rightfully belonged under State and local control.

What types of issues did the Founders envision for State control? Perhaps the clearest
and most succinct answer was provided by Thomas Jefferson--a leading proponent of the
anti-federalist sentiments reflected in the bill of Rights. Jefferson explained:

I believe the States can best govern our home concerns and the general [federal]
government our foreign ones. 10

Very simply, the federal government would be responsible for foreign affairs and the
States for domestic affairs.

In the specific area of religious liberties, the First Amendment had already excluded
that issue from the federal government; the Tenth Amendment was simply a further
affirmation that this issue rightfully belonged to the States--a fact made clear by Thomas
Jefferson on numerous occasions:

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the
Constitution from intermeddling with religious institution...or exercises...Certainly, no
power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline,
has been delegated to the general [federal] government. It must then rest with the States,
as far as it can be in any human authority. 11

No power over the freedom of religion...[is] delegated to the United States by the
Constitution. 12

In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the
Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. 13

The Founders had taken great pains to ensure that issues like that of school prayer
would never appear in the federal courts. Yet their diligent plans were abrogated through
what the Supreme Court terms "the selective incorporation of the Bill of
Rights." By this Process, in a series of decisions over the last half-century, the
Court has ruled that the Bill of Rights should limit not only the federal government, but
also the States. (For a complete explanation, see Justice Douglas's dissenting opinion in Waltz
v. Tax Commission, 1970. 14) The result has been the federalization of nearly all domestic issues by the Court--a
prospect which the Founders had feared. It was Jefferson who warned:

[W]hen all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be
drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks
provided of one government on another. 15

I wish, therefore...never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further
withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at
market. 16

With the Court having effectively emasculated the Tenth Amendment, the States have
become victims of federal micro-management--including the area of religious expressions.

The State's frustration over their loss of Constitution rights has recently led to a
very strong and well-organized legislative movement to reinstate the original intentions
of the Founders. If this movement succeeds, then the issue of school prayer (and numerous
other domestic issues) would be removed from federal jurisdiction and returned to State
and local controls where it properly belongs. However, this method would not remove the
three decades of religion-hostile Supreme Court decisions which have become a part of the
case-law precedent of the federal courts.

This process has occurred 17 times since the ratification of the original Bill of
Rights, the most recent being in 1992 with the passage of the 27th Amendment (dealing with
pay raises for U.S. Congressman). The amendment process is described in Article V of the
Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose
amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds
of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments.

This procedure is difficult for several reasons. First, the veneration of the
Constitution is so great, and the approach to that document so somber, that most citizens
oppose either frequent or trivial amendments. Second, since an amendment requires a
two-thirds vote of Congress rather than a simple majority, and since three-fourths of the
state legislatures must ratify any amendment, there must be widespread sentiment among the
citizenry on the subject in question. Third, because the time between the introduction of
an amendment and its ratification often spans years, the public opinion must be strong
enough to maintain support for the duration.

There are strengths and weaknesses inherent to each of the four methods listed above.
However, the first (waiting for a sufficient number of conservative Justices to arrive on
the Court) is unquestionably the weakest. Therefore of the remaining three, which is
preferable?

While all offer promise, the only means which both corrects the current situation and
also forever neutralizes the religion-hostile decisions delivered by the Court over the
past three decades is a constitutional amendment. Only a constitutional amendment can
completely prevent past decisions (i.e., case law) from ever again being invoked by any
judge at any level in any future case.

To understand the importance of removing bad precedent from the Court's case law,
consider the Dred Scott decision mentioned earlier. In that decision, the Court
ruled that Blacks were property, not persons, and that Congress could not prohibit the
extension of slavery into now territories. Much of the nation was highly outraged over
that decision, but the actions of both the congress and the President served to reverse
to. On June 9, 1862, Congress passed a law prohibiting slavery in the federal territories 17(something in
defiance of the Court ruling), and then President Lincoln issued the "Emancipation
Proclamation" 18declaring freedom for slaves in the Southern States. Yet it was not those acts which
forever silenced the Dred Scott decision, nor, for that matter, was that decision
ever overturned by any subsequent Supreme Court.

The single reason that the Dred Scott decision became totally null and void for
all time was the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. That amendment not only completed
the abolition of slavery in this country, it also wiped the Dred Scott decision off
the books in a legal sense so that it could never again be invoked by any court.

This, then, is what elevates a school prayer amendment above the other methods; it
alone can remove thirty years of bad precedent--something neither a return to the Tenth
Amendment nor an "exceptions clause" law were passed by Congress to reinstate
school prayer, history has proven that the Court will slowly but surely worm its way back
into that arena. As Jefferson observed:

[T]he federal judiciary [is]...working like gravity by night and by day, Gaining a
little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the
field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government of all
be consolidated into one [i.e., federalization]. 19

In summary, if the goal is only to impact the present, then voluntary school prayer can
be effectively reinstated by three methods: limiting appellate jurisdiction, restoring
State rights, passing a constitutional amendment. However, only the amendment option
provides their best safeguard for the future by removing the effects of a generation of
judicial activism from both the federal and State courts.

If an amendment offers such possibilities, then why limit it to school prayer? Why not
broaden it to include protection for other religious expressions? For example, most
Americans believe in allowing public displays of the Ten Commandments, nativity scenes,
historical religious artwork, crosses in a cemetery, etc.; yet in each of these
circumstances, courts have struck down such displays. In fact, consider the following
example of how religious liberties have been denied by courts in their various
jurisdictions:

Freedoms of speech and
press are guaranteed to students--unless the topic is religious, at which time such speech
becomes unconstitutional. STEIN v. OSHINSKI, 1965 20; COLLINS v. CHANDLER UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST., 1981 21

It is unconstitutional for a war memorial to be erected in the shape
of a cross. LOWE V. CITY OF EUGENE, 1969 25

Despite the fact that the Ten Commandments are the basis of civil
law and are depicted in engraved stone in the U.S. Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional
for a public courthouse to display them. HARVEY v. COBB COUNTY, 1993 26

It is unconstitutional for a public cemetery to have a planter in
the shape of a cross, for if someone were to view that cross, it could cause
"emotional distress" and thus constitute an "injury-in-fact." WARSAW
V. TEHACHAPI, 1990 27

A moment of silence designated for silent prayer at school is
unconstitutional. WALLACE V. JAFFREE, 1985 28

It is unconstitutional for a classroom library to contain books
which deal with Christianity, or for a teacher to be seen with a personal copy of the
Bible at school. ROBERTS V. MADIGAN, 1990 29

Artwork may not be displayed in schools if it depicts something
religious--even if that artwork is considered an historical classic. WASHEGESIC V.
BLOOMINGDALE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 1993 30

It is unconstitutional for a nativity scene to be displayed on
public property unless surrounded by sufficient secular displays to prevent it from
appearing religious. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. ACLU, 1989 31

Numerous other absurd examples of religious discrimination abound, all of then stemmed
from the religion-hostile atmosphere created by many courts. Notice:

Because a prosecuting attorney mentioned seven words from the Bible in the courtroom, a
statement which lasted less than five seconds, a jury sentence was overturned for a man
convicted of brutally clubbing to death a 71-year-old woman. 32

A high ranking official from the national drug czar's office who
regularly conducts public school anti-drug rallies was prohibited from doing so in
Nacogdoches, Texas, because the federal judge pointed out that even though the speaker was
an anti-drug expert, he was also known as a Christian minister and thus was disqualified
from delivered a secular anti-drug message. 33

In the Alaska public schools, students were prohibited from using
the word "Christmas" at school, from exchanging Christmas cards of presents, or
from displaying anything with the word "Christmas" on it because the word
"Christ" was contained in"Christmas." 34

In DeFuniak Spings, Florida, a judge ordered the courthouse copy of
the Ten commandments to be covered during a murder trial for fear tat jurors would be
prejudiced against the defendant if the saw the commands "Do not kill." 36

In Omaha, Nebraska, a student was prohibited form reading his Bible
silently during free time, or even to open his Bible at school, and was told to do so was
"against the law." 37

These examples (representative of numerous others) illustrate why many want protection
for more than school prayer. And given the general reticence of most to "tamper"
with the Constitution, it is unlikely that two separate amendments would ever be passed
(one on school prayer and one on public religious expressions). Therefore, should the
amendment be broadened?

In a political sense, expanding an issue through attachments often increases the
opposition, of broader language offers opponents more issues about which they may
complain. However, it is also true that attaching additional items broadens the appeals by
securing the support of groups interested in the add-ons. Therefore, the question is,
"Will broadening the amendment attract more support than opposition?"

This political consideration will certainly affect the planning on the breadth of the
amendment. The strategy ultimately is to get as much as possible without losing it all
because of trying to get too much; and while it is usually difficult to discern just when
that line is crossed, the decision must be made. However, as now proposed, the amendment
will protect more than school prayer.

What should be the wording for and amendment? Three decades ago which the Judiciary
Committees held their hearings, these two proposed wordings emerged:

Nothing in any article or amendment to the Constitution of the Untied States shall be
deemed to prohibit the offering or any prayer or any other recognition of God in
connection with any activity in a public school or other public place. 38H.J. RES 692

Nothing in this Constitution shall be deemed to prohibit the offering, reading from, or
listening to prayer or biblical scriptures, if participation therein is on a voluntary
basis, in any government or public school, institution, or place.

Nothing in this Constitution shall be deemed to prohibit making reference to belief in,
reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public
document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place, or upon any
coinage, currency, or obligation of the United States.

Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion. 39H.J. RES 693

Interestingly, these proposals appear as if they were drafted only months ago rather
than decades ago; it is obvious that even then, there were debates over the breadth of an
amendment.

While these proposals are not necessarily outdated, they will not provide the basis for
the current wording. In fact, from among the scores of diverse religious-liberty advocacy
groups, nearly a dozen different wordings have already been suggested, and several
Congressmen will also offer their own proposals. Below are a few of the proposals under
consideration:

Nothing in this constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer
in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United
States or by any state to participate in prayer Neither the United States nor any state
shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools. 40

Section 1. Neither the Untied States nor any State shall abridge the freedom of any
person or group, including students in public schools, to engage in prayer or other
religious expression in circumstances in which expression of a non-religious character
would be permitted; not deny benefits to or otherwise discriminate against any person or
group on account of the religious character of their speech, ideas, motivations or
identity.

Section 2. Nothing in the Constitution shall be construed to forbid the Untied States
or nay Sates to give public or ceremonial acknowledgement to the religious heritage,
beliefs, or traditions of its people.

Section 3. The exercise, by the people, of any freedoms under the first amendment or
under this Amendment shall not constitute an establishment of religion. 41

In order to secure the unalienable right of the people to acknowledge the Creator
according to the dictates of conscience, neither the United States nor nay State shall
abridge religious expression, including group or individual student prayer in public
schools, in times, places, or manners in which non-religious expression is permitted, deny
benefits nor otherwise discriminate on the basis of religious belief or speech, nor be
forbidden under this Constitution to acknowledge the religious history, beliefs or
traditions of its people. The exercise of any freedoms under this Amendment shall not
constitute an establishment of religion. 42

These represent some of the concise and practical proposals. Many others offered by
various grassroots organizations, although commendable of their goals, are for too broad
and imprecise. The wording of the amendment must be so simple an succinct, so clear and
unencumbered, that it can be understood by any average citizen, whether a student, a
school official or a legislator. In other words, it must be a political document with
legal ramification, rather than vice versa. This will preclude the necessity of filing
numerous lawsuits whereby it falls on the Courts to "clarify" the amendment's
purpose and define what is and is not appropriate religious expression.

The Judiciary Committees will take all of the proposals, hold numerous public hearings,
and then assimilate the information into the Committee's recommended wording. That
proposal will then receive additional refining and adjusting on the floors of the House
and the Senate before facing a vote for final approval.

However, whatever the final wording may be, many believe that it should include three
essential components; first, any prayers should be extemporaneous (that is, voluntarily
composed by the person praying rather than being scripted in advance by an authority);
second, the prayers--or any other religious expressions--must be voluntary and
non-coercive; and third, the resolution of disputes over religious matters should be
settled in the local or State rather than the federal jurisdiction.

The federal "one size fits all" approach has proven inadequate and the Courts
should not be given an opportunity to continue it. America must escape from the situation
described by Justice Jackson in McCollum v. Board of Education wherein the
Supreme court has now assumed "the role of a super board of education of every school
district in the nation." 43Allowing the Supreme court to resolve questions of religious expressions in local
communities and their schools accomplishes exactly what Justice Kennedy complained about
in Allegheny v. ACLU when he charged that the Court now functions "as a
national theology board." 44

The effect of the amendment should be to de-federalize the issue of religious liberties
and restore to the people the power to make their own decisions regarding not only if, but
also when or what type of religious activities should occur in their local community
schools and public arenas. This will retain the principle expressed by Thomas Jefferson:

The will of the majority, the natural law of every society, is the only sure guardian
of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes err, but its errors are honest,
solitary, and short-lived. 45

Officials in some local communities may act unwisely on this issue from time to time;
however, if this occurs, there is a solution. As Founder John Randolph explained,
"the proper restraint is in the people themselves, who at the ballot box could apply
the Constitutional corrective." 46However, if the judges act unwisely,
the people have no recourse. Therefore, if there is to be a conflict between the will of
the people and the will of the judges, let that of the people prevail. If the will of the
judges prevail, then what Jefferson forewarned unfortunately becomes reality:

You seem . . .to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional
questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the
despotism of an oligarchy [a small group of rulers]. 47

Ultimately, the purpose of the amendment, whatever its final wording, should be to
exclude (as was originally intended) public religious expressions from the jurisdiction of
the federal courts Recall Jefferson's words:

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the
Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. 48

In the current discussions surrounding the protection for various types of religious
expressions, the single most controversial issue--that is, the one religious expression
subjected to the greatest public debate--is that of school prayer. Interestingly, much of
the opposition rhetoric against school prayer has emerged from within the Christian
community. In this section, the most frequently raised objections against school prayer
will be addressed--from a declaredly Christian perspective.

Objection #1. "I oppose school prayer because I don't
want my children hearing a prayer of some other religion."

While this rhetoric is effective in its emotional appeal, there are at least five
reasons why it is poorly grounded and should not be accepted by the Christian community.

1. To oppose school prayer in an attempt to prevent the prayers of other religions is
actually to self-limit the effect of Christians. The notion that prayers from other
religions might dominate any open forum is based largely on the assumption that there is a
widespread religious pluralism in America; such is not the case. For example, consider the
recent findings of the largest study on religious beliefs ever undertaken in America:

Most Asian-Americans are not Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus, but Christians [and m]ore
than half the nation's 1.5 million Arab-Americans are Christians. . . . The. . .current
survey is the broadest percentage point. It is higher for subgroups. For example, the
researchers were able to project that there are 20,000 New Age adherents in the United
States, but their percentage of the population is too small [approximately 1 our of every
1,3000 adults] to report reliably. . . . Only 2 percent refused to reveal their religious
identification, and 7.5 percent said they had no religion. The survey found 86.5 percent
of Americans identified with Christian denominations, including 26 percent said they were
Jewish. One half percent of Americans were Muslims. (emphasis added) 49

Other studies confirm the same results. For example, according to the Yearbook of
Canadian and American Churches, 50there are currently 145.4 million
members of religious groups in the United States--members representing every type of
religion, both Christian and non-Christian:

GROUP

# OF MEMBERS

% OF TOTAL

Buddhists

100,000

.07

Spiritualists, Ethical Culture Movement
Unitarian-Universalists, etc.

197,203

0.14

Jehovah's Witnesses

804,639

0.55

Mormons

4,050,950

2.79

Eastern Religions

4,077,011

2.80

Jews

5,935,000

4.08

Roman Catholics

54,918,949

38.34

Protestants

74,473,097

51.23

Total

145,383,783

100%

According to current statistics, of those associated with any type of religion--that
is, of those individuals who might pray if given the opportunity--traditional Christians
comprise the overwhelming majority: nearly 90 percent Furthermore, when including Jews (a
Jewish prayer should elicit no objection from the Christian community), the percentage
increases to almost 94 percent.

Therefore, since the proposed amendments provide for extemporaneous student prayer ( a
student expressing his own prayer,), then to halt all prayers in order to prevent a
Buddhist or other prayer from occurring is to keep nine Christians from praying in order
to prevent one non-Christian prayer--reminiscent of the proverbial "throwing the baby
out with the bath water."

The only format in which expressions from other religions should be a concern for
Christians is if the equivalent of affirmative action in religion were instituted--that
is, if religious quotas were established. For example, it would be unacceptable to say
that because a school of 1,000 students has five different religions represented that the
actual time (not the opportunity) for religious expression must be divided equally among
all groups. That is, Buddhists could publicly practice their religious beliefs on Mondays;
New Agers on Tuesdays; Christians on Wednesdays; Muslims on Thursdays; etc. Such, however,
is not the case under any of the current proposals. Since each provides for extemporaneous
prayer, then the prayers offered by any religion would be based solely on the number of
adherents to that religion.

2. A school-prayer amendment will only level the playing field, thus elevating
Christianity to the same status which is often accorded to other religions on a public
school campus. This is needed because, as explained by Justice Kennedy:

[T]he Supreme Court of the United States has concluded that the First Amendment
creates classes of religions based on the relative numbers of their adherents. Those
religions enjoying the largest following must be consigned to the status of least-favored
faiths so as to avoid any possible risk of offending members of minority religions. 51

Currently, the smaller the group and the more non-orthodox its religious viewpoint, the
more legal elevation it receives. There is much evidence that numerous religious belief
systems are accorded a level of protection not extended to Christianity.

For example, the celebration of satanic activities and the pursuit of the occult
unquestionably constitutes religious practices. (In some areas in the Northeast, those who
give contributions to satanic groups get the same tax deductions as those who give to
Christian churches. 53) Yet public schools often set aside a full day, or portions of several days, for
students to celebrate and commemorate the occult and the satanic at school by dressing as
demons or witches for Halloween and by creating artwork depicting the symbols of this
religious system. However, those same schools frequently refuse to acknowledge national
holidays by their Christian names of Christmas or Easter, but instead change the name to
Winter or Spring Break. Furthermore, Christian artwork not only has been ordered out of
schools, 54but
students are even censured for drawing art work depicting Christian symbols. 55

Although Native American religious beliefs and Buddhism are recognized religions, in Roberts
v. Madigan56the court ruled that a classroom library could contain books on Native American and
eastern religions, but must remove any books on Christianity.

In Allegheny v. ACLU, 57the Court upheld the display of
Jewish holiday symbols while striking down the display of Christian symbols.

A sex education/health textbook used in several states openly inculcates the New Age
approach toward life and sexuality in the curriculum, yet the publishers refused to
present or even acknowledge the Christian approach toward life and sexuality. 58

In U.S. v. Seeger, 59the Supreme Court defined
"religion" so broadly that now non-religion, secularism, humanism, and numerous
other belief structures are considered religions, and the beliefs of these groups
frequently receive a treatment preferential to that of Christianity. For example, in Harris
v. Joint School District, 60a court ruled that there could be no
prayers of any kind nor any mention of a deity at school functions (thereby protecting the
beliefs of atheism and secular humanism); and in Jane Doe v. Santa Fe
Independent School District, a court issued a ruling that students may pray to a
general impersonal deity during graduation ceremonies, but warned that any student who
mentioned the word "Jesus" would be arrested by a federal marshal and placed in
jail for a term of six months 61(thereby protecting the belief in an impersonal god embraced by deism and agnosticism,
while prosecuting for Christian beliefs).

Further examples could be cited which demonstrate that Christianity does not receive
the same legal protection bestowed on other religions. Consequently, those who believe
that they will be protecting their children from other religions by opposing school prayer
are uninformed on what is currently occurring in the courts and schools. The school prayer
amendment would only level the playing field, giving Christianity the same opportunities
already enjoyed by many other religious belief systems.

3. To oppose prayer for fear that another religion might pray is to imply that the
other religion is more powerful than Christianity. Christians need to recall the Biblical
principle presented in 1 Kings 18. During the conflict between Elijah and the prophets of
Baal, Elijah challenged the people to determine who was "God" --to decide which
"God" had the greatest power--and then to follow Him whole heartedly. In fact,
Elijah even offered the prophets of Baal more time to pray; he was not worries so long as
he got his opportunity to pray; he knew what would he prayed to his God. If Christians
feat the power of other religions over the power of their own, then they need to
re-examine their faith. From the Christian viewpoint, the other religions should be
"trembling in their boots" at the prospect that Christians might have the
opportunity to pray, not vice versa.

However, beyond the theological aspect just noted, there is yet another consideration.
As explained by Founder DeWitt Clinton  :

Christianity may be contemplated in two important aspects. First, in reference to its
influence on this world; and secondly, in reference to our destiny in the world to come. 62

Although the spiritual considerations "in reference to our destiny in the world to
come" are vital, the societal benefits and influence on this world" which
proceed from public religious acknowledgments like prayer should not be ignored, God
example, Benjamin Rush, 
one of the strongest and most evangelical Christians among the Founding Fathers, felt it
imperative that all students in school have opportunity to know that there is a God. He
explained:

Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a
future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius
or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of
religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place, is that of the
New Testament. 63

From a theological standpoint, Benjamin Rush preferred Christianity; but from societal
considerations, he believed that it was better for students to be taught any religion than
no religion--and logically so, for the behavioral aspects of most major religions are
similar (e.g., don't murder, don't steal don't lie, one is responsible for the
consequences arising from his personal behavior, etc.). The societal benefits arising from
student exposure to religious teachings are not inconsequential.

4. From a Biblical perspective, it is difficult to find grounds to oppose any
opportunity for students to acknowledge God publicly. For example, Proverbs 3:5-6 commands
that in all our ways we are to acknowledge Him. Furthermore, Psalm 79:6 and Jeremiah 10:25
call for God's wrath upon all nations which do not call upon His name, and Matthew 10:32
and Luke 12:8 clearly present the blessings of acknowledging Him in public. Numerous other
verses could be cited, but the Biblical message is both clear and consistent: God Himself
believes that it is important to acknowledge Him publicly.

So clear was this Biblical teaching that our own Founding Fathers frequently declared
its importance. For example (emphasis added in each quote):

[I]t is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to
obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and
favor. 64PRESIDENT
GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1789

[W]e ought to be led by religious feelings of gratitude; and to walk before Him in all
humility, according to His most Holy Law . . .[and] humbly supplicate our Heavenly Father
to grant us the aids of His grace . . . and vouchsafe His smiles upon our temporal
concerns. 65GOVERNOR
SAMUEL ADAMS, 1795

The goodness of the Supreme Being to all His rational creatures demands their
acknowledgments of gratitude and love; His absolute government of the world dictates
that it is the interest of every nation and people ardently to supplicate His favor and
implore His protection. 66GOVERNOR JOHN HANCOCK, 1782

To a people who believe the superintending Providence of the Divine Being over all human
affairs, that even a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His permission, it will not
be unexpected that their civil rulers should call upon them . . . to seek the Divine
protection and assistance. 67MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNING COUNCIL, 1780

It being our incumbent duty to acknowledge God in all our ways and to commit all
our affairs, both public and private, to all His all wise direction and guidance. 68[GOVERNOR] JAMES
BOWDOIN, 1776

[I]t is our indispensable duty to implore the blessing of Heaven upon all
occasions. 69GOVERNOR
JOHN WENTWORTH, 1775

The Scriptures teach the importance of the public acknowledgment of His principles, and
our own history confirms our understanding of this truth.

On what Biblical basis, then, can a Christian attempt to limit the public arenas in
which God may be acknowledged? Since Proverb 14:34 declares, "Righteousness exalteth
a nation," and Psalm 33:12 similarly proclaims, "Blessed is the nation
whose God is the Lord," then Christians should seek to extend and expand, not lessen
or narrow, the opportunity for the public acknowledgment of God.

5. Finally, to oppose school prayer for fear of another religion is to ignore the fact
that other religions already receive protection for their religious expressions under the
guarantee of "free speech"--a protection less often extended to Christian
religious expressions. Furthermore, the fear that other not grounded in legal realities;
while numerous lawsuits involving other religions do exist, rarely do they involve prayer.
In fact, examinations of scores of lawsuits other religions do exist, rarely do they
involve prayer. In fact, examination of scores of lawsuits reveal that it is Christians,
not other religious adherents, who tend to get into legal "hot water" because of
their desire to pray.

Since opposing school prayer will not significantly limit (if at all) the opportunity
of other religions to express their beliefs on a public school campus, and since lawsuits
indicate that Christians are usually the only ones being denied the opportunity to pray in
public, why should Christians voluntarily assist the effort to restrict their own rights
by opposing an amendment?

Objection #2: "An amendment is not needed since the
Court never prohibited voluntary prayer."

While this objection is often raised, it is incorrect. It was the Supreme court itself
which in Engel v. Vitale explained that:

Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor
the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve
free it from the limitations of the [First Amendment]. . . . [It] ignores the essential
nature of the program's constitutional defects. . . . Prayer in its public school system
breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. 70(emphasis added)

The real issue in that original prayer case was not the state-mandated coercion
argument so often recited by today's revisionist reviewers; rather, it was--as the Court
itself openly declared--simply the presence of "prayer in [the] public school
system."

Additional proof of this is found in the manner in which the Engel case has been
invoked in subsequent years. If the impact of this ruling had been only to stop
state-approved, state mandated, supposedly, coercive prayers while still allowing
voluntary prayers, then Engel would have been cited in no subsequent ruling, for
there have been no further cases involving those circumstances. Yet even a cursory perusal
of court rulings over recent decades reveals that this has not been the case; Engel
has been cited in virtually every prayer case, regardless of its dissimilarity to the
original case.

For example, the courts relied on Engel when striking down adult-led graduation
invocations and benedictions in Lee v. Weisman and student-led prayer in Harris
v. Joint School District 71; when striking down voluntary silent prayer in Wallace v. Jaffree 72; when
striking down team athletic prayers in Doe v. Duncanville Independent School
District 73;
when striking down equal-access invocations before football games in Jager v. Douglas
74; and in
numbers of other prayer cases. Very simply, the usage of the Engel case confirms
that the original decision was an attack on any type of prayers in school.

Furthermore, not only have the courts regularly attacked voluntary prayer, but in their
remaking of the First Amendment over recent decades, the Court has applied for different
standards: the "establishment test" (1947); the "lemon test" (1971)
under which a public religious activity must have a predominately secular
purpose; the "endorsement test" (1985); and the "psychological coercion
test: (1992). Each succeeding test was less tolerant of public religious expressions than
the previous one. Observing the court's involving standards and varying tests, one is
reminded of Thomas Jefferson's warning:

The Constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they
may twist and shape into any form they please. 75

The simple fact in practice is that the Supreme Court did rule against voluntary
prayer; it is for his reason that relief is being sought.

Objection #3. "Prayer should be done in private, in
the 'closet', not in public. If there is to be any change in current policies, let it be
to allow silent--not verbal--prayer or meditation."

This argument is invoked by both Christians and non-Christians in reference to the
teaching of Jesus in Matthew 6:6: "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy
closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret and thy
Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

If this were the only passage in the Bible regarding prayer, then this argument might
have merit. However, the narrow interpretation of private-prayer-only is supported neither
by other Scriptures nor by the life of Jesus. While Jesus Himself did practice private
prayer (e.g., Mark 1:35, Luke 5:16, Matthew 14:23, etc.), it is also clear that He and His
followers practiced public prayer and make wherever they went a place for prayer. Notice a
few such examples which undermine the private-prayer-only argument:

On numerous occasions, Jesus prayed aloud in public with and in from of a large group.
See, for example, MARK 6:41, MATTHEW 14:19, LUKE 9:16, MARK 8:6-7, MATTHEW 15:36, JOHN
6:11,23.

Jesus prayed for and blessed children in public. MARK 10:16, MATTHEW 19:13.

Jesus prayed for and blessed children in public. LUKE 3:21.

Jesus prayed with a large group on top of a mountain. LUKE 24:50,51

Stephen prayed before a public crowd. ACTS 7:59

Peter prayed on an open, exposed city roof. ACTS 10:9.

Paul and Silas prayed aloud in front of onlookers. ACTS 21:5.

Paul prayed on a public beach to a large crowd. ACTS 27:29,35.

Paul prayed with a group on a public road. ACTS 28:15.

Even Justice Scalia, Rehnquist, White, and Thomas recognized that private-only
religious practice was inconsistent with American religious tradition. They explained:

Church and state would not be such a difficult subject if religion were, as the Court
apparently thinks it to be, some purely personal avocation that can be indulged entirely
in secret, like pornography, in the privacy of one's room. For most believers it is not
that, and has never been. Religious men and women of almost all denominations have felt it
necessary to acknowledge and beseech the blessing of God as a people, and not just as
individuals, because they believe in the "protection of divine Providence," as
the Declaration of Independence put it, not just of individuals but for societies; because
they believe God to be, as Washington's first Thanksgiving Proclamation put it, the
"Great Lord and Ruler of Nations." One can believe in the effectiveness of such
public worship, or one can deprecate and deride it. but the long-standing American
tradition of prayer at official ceremonies displays what unmistakable clarity that the
Establishment Clause does not forbid the government to accommodate it. 76

Jesus' admonition to pray privately was neither an exclusive order nor was it His only
word on prayer. He and His early followers openly and frequently prayed in public. Within
Christian circles, this sets an example that believers are expected to follow (e.g., John
13:15; 1 Peter 2:21; Philippians 4:9, etc).

Similarly, any proposal for a period of silent mediation only should be an equally
unacceptable alternative form the Christian perspective. The principle of public, not just
private acknowledgment, is a powerful principle and should be pursued; it has a clear
effect on thinking and behavior.

For example, Romans 1:28-31 teaches that for those who "did not think it
worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God," the result is a mind that invents ways of
doing evil, disobeys parents, and becomes heartless and ruthless. Psalm 10:4,7-9, 13
teaches that he who "in his thoughts has no room for God," consequently believes
that he will not account to God and thus there is no restraint on his behavior. Psalm 14:1
similarly teaches that when one "says in his heart, "There is no God,'"
then good behavior diminishes and deeds become corrupt and vile. The Scriptures clearly
teach that an awareness of God serves as a powerful societal deterrent against destructive
behavior.

It is not surprising, then, that recognizing the important societal effect arising form
publicly acknowledging God remained a part of our political understanding throughout our
early history. For example, in 1798, John Adams explained:

[T]he safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend upon the
protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth
is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him, but a duty whose natural
influence is favorable to the promotion of that morality and piety without which social
happiness cannot exist nor the blessings of a free government be enjoyed. 77

Then in 1799, Adams similarly explained:

[N]o truth is more clearly taught in the Volume of Inspiration, nor any more fully
demonstrated by the experience of all ages, than that a deep sense and a due
acknowledgment of the governing providence of a Supreme Being and of the accountableness
of men to Him as the searcher of hearts and righteous distributor of rewards and
punishments are conducive equally to the happiness and rectitude of individuals and to the
well-being of communities. 78

This truth was proclaimed not only by civic leaders like John Adams but also by
religious leaders as well. For example, the Reverend Matthias Burnet made the same point
in an 1803 sermon preached in the Connecticut Capitol Building before Governor Jonathan
Trumbull and the Connecticut legislature--a sermon preached at their request. He
explained:

Feeble. . .would be the best form of government . . .without a sense of religion and
the terrors of the world to come . . .Banish a sense of religion and the terrors of the
world to come from society and you . . . leave every man to do that which is right in his
own eyes . . . [T]he man who . . . is not actuated by the fear and awe of [God] has in
many cases no bond or restraint upon his conduct. 79

And in 1854, the House Judiciary Committee similarly declared:

Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious
sentiment--without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward out
virtues and punish our vices. 80

Since the Scriptures make clear the societal benefits derived from the public
acknowledgment of God (and our history demonstrates that we long understood this
principle), what can be gained from the current policy of an academic denial-in-practice
of the existence of god by refusing to allow the public, open acknowledgment of Him?

Objection #4. "The public schools are no place for
religious expression if students desire such expressions, let them attend a private
school."

Interestingly, the argument that public schools are not the proper location in which to
acknowledge God is not new. In 1844, Daniel Webster confronted the same objection during
his arguments in the case Vidal v. Girard's Executors. 81Webster explained why religious
exercises should occur at government-assisted schools and not just private ones:

When little children were brought into the presence of the Son of God, his Disciples
proposed to send them away; but he said, "Suffer [permit] little children to come
unto me." And that injunction is of perpetual obligation. It addresses itself today.
. . . [and] is of force everywhere, and at all times. It extends to the ends of the earth,
it will reach to the end of time, always and everywhere sounding in the ears of men, with
an emphasis which no repetition can weaken, and with an authority which nothing can
supersede--"Suffer [permit] little children to come unto me." . . . It will,
therefore, soothe the heart of no Christian parent . . . that [his children] may be . . .
excluded from all the means of religious instruction afforded to other children [in
private schools], and shut up through the most interesting period of their lives in a
[school] without religion. 82

The same private-school argument was also raised three decades ago in Abington
v. Schempp. At that time, Justice Potter Stewart explained why sending students to
private schools to accommodate their desires for religious expression was not a
viable constitutional solution:

It might be argued here that parents who wanted their children to be exposed to
religious influences in school could . . . send their children to private or parochial
schools. But the consideration which renders this contention too facile to be
determinative [too weak to be seriously considered] has already been recognized by
religion are available to all, not merely to these who can pay their own way." Murdock
v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, 111. It might also be argued that parents who want
their children exposed to religious influences can adequately fulfill that wish off school
property and outside school time. With all its surface persuasiveness, however, this
argument seriously misconceives the basic constitutional justification for permitting the
exercises at issue in these cases. For a compulsory state educational system so structures
a child's life that if religious exercises are held to be an impermissible activity in
schools, religion is placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage. Viewed in
this light, permission of such exercises for those who want them is necessary if the
schools are truly to be neutral in the matter of religion. And a refusal to permit
religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather
as the establishment of a religion of secularism. 83

Not only does government-mandated compulsory education make sending students to private
schools an illogical argument, such an argument would also economically penalize those
parents who make that choice. Although still required to pay public school taxes, those
parents would forfeit all potential services their children might receive from those taxes
and then they would have to pay additional funds (private school tuition) simply to allow
their children to publicly acknowledge God. Sending children to private schools simply to
accommodate their desire for religious expression economically defeats what is described
as the free exercise of religion. As the Court itself had earlier noted,
"Freedom of religion [is] available to all, not merely those who can pay their own
way." 84

Objection #5. "Public prayer is too divisive; it
should be left alone."

Over 200 years ago, this same argument was raised on the morning of September 7,
1774--America's first-ever fathering of Congress. Notice John Adams' description to his
wife Abigail of the occasion when that argument was invoked:

When the Congress first met, Mr. [Thomas] Cushing made a motion that it
should be opened with prayer. It was opposed by Mr. [John] Jay of Now York and Mr. [Edward
of John] Rutledge of South Carolina because we were so divided in religious sentiments,
some Episcopalians, some Quakers, some Anabaptists, some Presbyterians, and some
Congregationalists, that we could not join in the same act of worship. 85

In theory, it appeared that public prayer would be divisive; yet, as confirmed by the
remainder of John Adams' letter, the theory was disproved when the practice became
reality:

Mr. Samuel Adams arose and said he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from a
gentleman of piety and virtue. . . . Accordingly, next morning. . . . Mr. [Rev.] Duche . .
. struck out into an extemporary prayer, which filled the bosom of every man present. I
must confess I never heard a better prayer, or one so well pronounced. . . . It has had an
excellent effect upon everybody here. 86

Daniel Webster, in arguments before the U. S. Supreme Court, also reminded them of the
uniting power of prayer experienced on that occasion:

At the meeting of the first Congress there was a doubt in the minds of many about the
propriety of opening the session with prayer and the reason assigned was, as here, the
great diversity of opinion and religious belief. Until at last Mr. Samuel Adams, with his
gray hairs hanging about his shoulders, and with an impressive venerableness now seldom to
be met with, . . . rose in that assembly, and with the air of a perfect Puritan said it
did not become men professing to be Christian men, who had come together for solemn
deliberation in the hour of their extremity, to say that there was so wide a difference in
the religious belief that they could not, as one man, bow the knee in prayer to the
Almighty whose advice and assistance they hoped to obtain . . . . And depend upon it, that
where there is a spirit of Christianity, there is a spirit which rises above form, above
ceremonies, independent of sect or creed, and the controversies of clashing doctrines. 87

The argument of the alleged divisiveness of school prayer was also raised in Lee
v. Weisman (1992); notice the response of Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, White, and
Thomas:

The founders of our Republic knew the fearsome potential of sectarian religious belief
to generate civil dissension and civil strife. And they also knew that nothing, is so
inclined to foster among religious believers of various faiths a toleration --no,and
affection--for one another than voluntarily joining in prayer together, to God whom they
all worship and seek . . . . The Baptist of Catholic who heard and joined in the simple
and inspiring prayers of Rabbi Gutterman on this official and patriotic occasion was
inoculated from religious bigotry and prejudice in a manner that cannot be replicated. To
deprive out society of that important unifying mechanism . . . is as senseless in policy
as it is unsupported in law. 88

In fact, when the Court struck down a statute allowing student prayer in Wallace
v. Jaffree (1985), Chief-Justice Burger complained that the Court was depriving
society of the positive influence of toleration produced by prayer. He noted:

The [prayer] statute does not remotely threaten religious liberty; it affirmatively
furthers the values of religious freedom and tolerance that the Establishment Clause was
designed to protect. 89

As borne out by numerous public polls, prayer is a unifying force, not a divisive one.
In fact, the support for public prayer has been growing over recent years as the public
becomes even more unified on this issue.

For example, in 1985, sixty-nine percent of Americans supported school prayer; 90by 1991, that
number had increased to seventy-eight percent. 91Similarly, in 1988, sixty-eight
percent of Americans supported a constitutional amendment to reinstate school prayer; 92by 1994, that
number had risen to seventy-three percent. 93In reality, the absence of
school prayer is much more divisive to the public then its presence.

Objection #6. "The presence of school prayer might
offend or cause someone to be uncomfortable; we need to protect the rights and feelings of
every individual."

In other words, what if an atheist (or some other individual) should be offended by a
prayer; that wouldn't be fair to him.

This argument is designed to appeal to or emotional sense of fairness rather than our
broader sense of justice and propriety; it turns the focus away form what is best for
society at large to what is best of single individuals. This argument needs to be
reframed.

On every issue involving two differing viewpoints, there will be a winner and a loser.
Recall Thomas Jefferson's measurement for determining the winner and the loser:

The will of the majority, the natural law of every society, is the only sure guardian
of the rights of man. 94

This is the simple principle embodied in the Constitution which stipulates numbers such
as a majority, two-thirds, and three-fourths preceding the enactment of a national policy.
Under the constitution, the winner must never be the minority, and the loser must never be
the majority. If a minority is allowed to dictate public policy, then America can be
called neither a republic nor a democracy.

For example, if a vote in the Senate was 75 to 25, the 75 must be declared the
winners and their position must prevail. If, of some season, the 25 were deemed the
victors, it would never be tolerated under our Constitutional form of government.

On the issue of school prayer, there are only two possibilities: either there will be
prayer in school, or there will be no prayer in school. There is no middle ground; the
supported of only one position will prevail. Which position should prevail? The
theoretical answer is obvious, but the actual answer is quite different.

In fact, after a review of the Supreme Court's decisions on prayer, the federal judge
who originally presided over the Lee v. Weisman case concluded:

[T]he Constitution as the Supreme Court views it does not permit it [prayer]....
Unfortunately, in this instance there is no satisfactory middle ground.... Those who are
anti-prayer have thus been deemed the victors. 95(emphasis added)

This is clear case of the minority prevailing over the wishes of the majority.

A common means by which the Supreme Court allows the minority to triumph was vividly
illustrated in the Lee v. Weisman decision. When the Court struck down
graduation prayers in that case, it did so on the basis of a new test it had originated;
the "psychological coercion test." How does the Court's "psychological
coercion test" work? Under this test, if a religious activity causes a single
observer to feel uncomfortable or embarrassed, then "psychological coercion" has
occurred and hence that religious activity is unconstitutional. This test, although
designed to protect single individuals, will regularly violate the rights of the majority.

I had been an early variant of that test which the court had invoked three decades
earlier to strike down prayer and Bible reading in Abington v. Schempp and Murray
v. Curlett. The Court argued that even though the prayers and Scripture readings
had been voluntary, a child might feel uncomfortable of embarrassed if he or she did not
participate in them, or if, for example, he stepped outside the classroom during the
reading or prayer. Yet consider the discriminatory manner in which the psychological
coercion test has been applied over the past three decades.

Many Christian students are highly offended or embarrassed over, for example, the
graphic nature of overly-discriptive sex education, safe-sex presentation,
alternative-lifestyle teachings, Halloween activities, or New Age relaxation techniques in
the classroom, etc.--all of which violate their religious beliefs. Yet when they report
these feelings to school officials, they re told that they may opt-out of those parts of
the classes or may go to study-hall during the offensive portions. Where is the concern
for psychological coercion against Christian students? The current application of the
psychological coercion test suggests that the rights of individuals are most often
protected when they oppose traditional religious or conservative positions.

Furthermore, the good of society in general must not be comprised to protect the
beliefs or practices of single individuals. Charles Hodge, a professor at Princeton
University, explained this principle in these words:

If a man goes to China, he expects to find the government administered according to the
religion of the country. If he goes to Turkey, he expects to find the Koran supreme and
regulating all public action. If he goes to [America], he has no right to complain should
he find the Bible in the ascendancy and exerting its benign influence not only on the
people but also on the government.... [34] All are welcomed; all are admitted to equal
rights and privileges All are allowed to acquire property and to vote in every election,
made eligible to all offices and invested with equal influence in all public affairs. All
are allowed to worship as they please or not to worship at all if they see fit. No man is
required to profess any form of faith or to in any religious association. More than this
cannot reasonably be demanded. More, however, is demanded. The infidel demands that the
government should be conducted on the principle that Christianity is false. The atheist
demands that it should be conducted on the assumption that there is no God, and the
positivist on the principle that men are not free agents. The demands of those who require
that religion... Should be ignored in out national, state, and municipal laws, are not
only unreasonable, but they are in the highest degree unjust and tyrannical. 96

Until the past three decades, courts had long rejected the concept of single
individuals or groups setting aside the will of the majority. Notice:

While our own free constitution secures liberty of conscience and freedom of religious
worship to all, it is not necessary to maintain that any man should have the right
publicly to vilify the religion of his neighbors and of the country; these two privileges
are directly opposed. 97UPDEGRAPH V. COMMONWEALTH

The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and
free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to
revile [abuse] ... the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of
that right. 98PEOPLE
V. RUGGLES

The invaluable privilege of the rights of conscience secured to us by the constitution
of the commonwealth, was never intended to shelter those persons, who, out of mere caprice
[impulse], would directly oppose those laws for the pleasure of showing their contempt and
abhorrence of the religious opinions of the great mass of the citizens. 99COMMONWEALTH V. WOLF

We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. . . .When the
state encourages religious instruction of cooperates with religious authorities . . .it
follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our
people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may
no. . . .would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. 100ZORACH V.
CLAUSON

Objection #7. "This amendment will mandate school
prayer; it is wrong to force anyone to pray."

The school prayer amendment does not mandate school prayer and does not force anyone to
pray; it only provides the opportunity for those who wish to pray too so. Perhaps Justice
Potter Stewart offered the best explanation of why the current proposal cannot be
construed as a mandatory or coercive exercise when he explained:

I cannot see how an "official religion: is established by letting those who want
to say a prayer say it. . . .For we deal here no with the establishment of a state church,
which would, of course, be constitutionally impermissible, but with whether school
children who want to begin their day by joining in prayer must be prohibited from doing
so. 101

It is against the fundamental tenet of American Christianity to force coercion of nay
religious practice. It was to escape such coercion that so many of our ancestors
originally came to America, and it was for this reason that the Founders guaranteed the
free exercise of religion.

This proposed amendment is still within that original spirit; there is no proposed
prayer amendment of the table which would in any manner mandate prayer. In fact, in many
localities there may be no school prayer even after the amendment is passed; that will be
the decision of those in that community. This amendment only allows the opportunity for
prayer for those who wish it and neither mandates prayer no any type of prayer.

The fate of a school prayer/religious liberties amendment rests in the hands of the
Congress. Unfortunately, much of the national media, as well as many paid Washington
lobbyists, have already begun to campaign against this issue. They warn the Congressmen,
for example, that the feelings for school prayer are limited to the extreme religious
right and that to be associated with the issue will hurt their reelection; or that school
prayer is too politically divisive and should be left alone; or that to broach this issue
is simply un-American since it would undermine the "constitutional" guarantee of
separation of church and state; etc. This rhetoric is already flowing freely and is
intended both to discourage and to intimidate the members of Congress on this issue.

Although many of the Congressmen, especially those in the new freshman class, are
strongly committed to supporting a school prayer-religious liberties amendment, the
inherent danger of being continually bombarded with the opposition rhetoric is that:
"There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it enough people will believe it."
This is where grassroots help is so vital.

It will be important that the Congressmen hear from constituents both before and
after the amendment is formally introduced. In fact, without the encouragement that
comes before, the momentum may be lost and the entire issue could die behind the scenes.
Congressmen, even those already committed to this issue, do need to hear from the
supporters of an amendment; they need to be reminded that when three-fourths of the nation
supports an issue, that such a quantity does not constitute the alleged radical
fringe element as claimed by the national media.

In communicating with your Congressman, however, it is important that your contacts be
personal. If an individual does not feel strongly enough about an issue to express himself
in an original letter, then he/she receives little serious consideration (mass-produced
mailings, form letters, or petitions usually go into the trash). A personal letter is
effective, even a short one; here are a few suggestions to guide you:

Be personal in your letter; use the name of your Congressman (you can obtain his/her
mane through the library, Chamber of Commerce, or other similar public service
organizations).

Get to the point. Open with a short greeting, then explain why you are writing and what
you would like he congressman to do; three of four short paragraphs are plenty.

Give practical, well-thought-out, logical reasons of your position and why you want him
to take certain steps. Avoid Christian cliches or phrases, and don't get
"preachy."

Don't threaten. Threats tend to bring out the stubborn side in most individuals.

Close with a statement of appreciation (for his/her service, his/her consideration of
your request, etc.), and then ask him/her for a response to your letter.

The address for your federal Representative or Senator is:

Name of your Representative
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Name of your Senator
U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510

If you decide to call instead of write, dial the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
When the operator answers, ask for your Senator of Representative by name. When that
office answers, ask to speak to your Congressman. If he is available, often he will speak
with you. If he is unavailable, simply express to his staff your concern or what you
expect him to do concerning the school prayer/religious liberties issue. The staff will
record your thoughts and will communicate them to the Congressman.

In addition to writing or calling, the Honorable Bill Dannemeyer (a member of the House
of Representatives from 1979-1992) and I co-head and organization called "Americans
for Voluntary School Prayer." Its purpose is to organize a group of about six voters
in each Congressional district to personally seek an appointment with their representative
in his/her home town office to discuss this important issue and to request that he/she
become a co-sponsor of the proposed Constitutional Amendment. The half dozen people should
ideally be a cross section of the community, all registered voters, and could include a
teacher, a pastor, a businessman, a housewife , or any member of a profession. If you
would like to be a part of this grassroots network, please contact:

Furthermore, since the opposition rhetoric has already mobilized, it is now vital that
the supporters of the amendment begin broadly to publicize the support rhetoric by talking
with friends and neighbors, writing letters to the editor, calling in to participate in
local talk shows, etc. However, do not approach this issue in an uninformed or haphazard
manner; study the arguments of the opposition; identify the statistics, facts and logic
which refute their arguments; prepare yourself to argue the issue without being emotional
(and thus often appearing illogical0; rely on well-thought-out and well-reasoned
arguments. You can be effective in communicating an alternative view to that
frequently presented in the national media.

The religious expression issue is far too important to die a slow and obscure political
death; we should pursue the national policy articulated by Abraham Lincoln that:

It is the duty of nations to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy
Scripture, and proven by all history that, "Those nations only are blessed whose God
is the Lord." 102(emphasis added)

We must regain the conviction held by our Founders that Biblical principles--and thus
the public acknowledgment of God--are vital to national success. As George Washington
explained:

[T]he propitious [favorable] smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that
disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained. 103

Therefore, for the sake of this generation--as well as future ones--we should heed the
advice of John Hancock:

I conjure [command] you, by all that is dear, by all that is honorable, by all that is
sacred, not only that ye pray but that ye act. 104

Some assert that the Engel decision never infringed on voluntary school
prayer. This assertion will be examined in detail in a following section. (Return)

A note about the difference in usage between "Court" and
"court": "Court" (capital "C") refers to the Supreme Court
of the United States, whereas "court" (lower-case "c") indicates any
other court. Similarly, "Courts specifically refers to the decisions of collective
U.S. Supreme Courts and "courts" refers to the judiciary in general. (Return)

Dewitt Clinton (1769-1828) was a United States Senator who introduced
the Twelfth Amendment, the mayor of New York City, and the Governor of New York, a
vice-president of the American Bible Society, and a member of numerous philanthropic
organizations. (Return)

Benjamin Rush (1745-1813) was a signer of the Declaration of
Independence and member of the Continental Congress. Rush was an early proponent of the
abolition of slavery, helped found several colleges, and was a leading medical doctor and
lecturer of his day. He was also a founder of America's first Bible society as well as
being involved in a number of philanthropic pursuits. (Return)

13. Annals of the Congress of the United States, Eighth Congress-Second Session
(Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852), p. 78. In his Second Inaugural Address, March 4,
1805. See also A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897,
James D. Richardson, editor (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379. (Return)

38. Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives,
Eighty-eighth Congress, Second Session on Proposed Amendments to the Constitution Relating
to Prayer and Bible Reading in the Public Schools (Printed for the Use of the
Committee on the Judiciary, 1964), Part 1, p. 22. (Return)

49. The Washington Times, April 11, 1991, "7 of 8 in U.S. Follow
Christ," p. A3. Taken from the study by Barry A. Kosmin and Saymour P. Lachman,
One Nation Under God: Religion in contemporary American Society (New York: Harmony
books, 1994). (Return)

58. Textbook Review: A Critical "Review of Five Health Textbooks Submitted to
the Texas Board of Education, With an Emphasis on the Texas Administrative Code, the Texas
Education Code, and the Proclamation Under Which the Books Were Submitted. Submitted
by Bob Offut and Monte Hasie. Prepared by Diane Hensley, Jeff Fisher, and Stephanie Cecil.
(Return)

103. The Daily Advertiser, May 1, 1789 (New York: Francis Childs, 1789), p.2.
See also, American State Papers. Documents, Legislative, and Executive, of the Congress
of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Gales and Seaton, 1833), Vol. I, p. 9. (Return)